Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
= h (8)
For the heat transfer coefficient and the heat conduction coefficient , constant effective values
are used. Table 1 shows some values for the quenching intensity h and the associated equations to
calculate the distance from the quenched end face J
0
=(d
0
,h) [40, 49, 50].
Table 1. Equations for determining the distance J
0
from the quenched end for different h values [3].
Quenchant h Equation
e. g. oil, still 0.25
0
0003 , 0 755 . 0
0 0
d
d J
=
e. g. oil, weak motion 0.35
0
0001 . 0 649 . 0
0 0
d
d J
=
e. g. oil, active motion 0.45
57 . 0
0 0
d J =
e. g. oil, strong motion 0.60
5 . 0
0 0
d J =
e. g. oil, stormy motion 1.00
0
00015 . 0 47 . 0
0 0
d
d J
=
In SimCarb QuenchTemp, the user is able to choose a quenchant from a program library of 37
different entries. For each quenchant, the associated quenching severity is stored in a database. The
values of the quenching intensity of each included quenchant stem from data analyses of literature
references [5, 13, 48, 51 62].
The quenching severity can also be entered manually by selecting manual input from the list.
Valid values of h range from 0.2 to 2.0 and refer to still water of, per definition, h=1.0. Fig. 3 shows
typical Grossman numbers of various groups of quenchants, depending on the agitation condition.
Fig. 1.
Typical Grossman numbers of various quenchant groups,
depending on the agitation.
1-211
Derivation of the Hardness Profile. In a first step the relevant distance from the end face J
0
is
calculated from the diameter d
0
and Grossmans quenching intensity h. In Fig. 4a, the function of
h=0.30 is shown. In this example, the calculation is performed for a diameter of d
0
=50 mm and a
quenching intensity of h=0.30. The resulting distance J
0
from the quenched end face is 15 mm.
In a second step, Jominy curves for carbon concentrations from the basic value to a carbon con-
tent of 0.6 wt.% (full martensite hardness) are calculated by means of Eq. 1, as exemplarily shown
Fig. 4b. The evaluation of the calculated Jominy curves is made for J
0
=15 mm. The hardness values
of the different carbon concentrations of Fig. 4b can also be expected at the corresponding carbon
content in the quenched surface layer. From the carburization profile in Fig. 4c, the distances from
the surface for every carbon concentration are determined. By transferring the hardness values of all
relevant carbon concentrations of Fig. 4b and the distances where these concentrations occur of Fig.
4c as indicated to Fig. 4d, a hardness profile of the case hardening layer is derived.
In SimCarb QuenchTemp the calculation of Jominy curves occurs in steps of 0.01 wt.% C to
achieve a precise hardness resolution in the surface layer. The carburization profile can be
simulated by SimCarb and imported in SimCarb QuenchTemp. Alternatively, a carburization profile
can be generated directly in SimCarb QuenchTemp by entering supporting points for depth and
carbon concentration, as shown in Fig. 1. Between the supporting points a polynomial interpolation
method is used. The subroutine program allocates the corresponding hardness value and distance
from the surface for every carbon concentration between the basic carbon content and 0.6 wt.% C
and calculates a hardness profile in the case hardening layer. For the determination of hardness
values between the surface hardness value and the hardness value at the carbon concentration of 0.6
wt.%, a polynomial interpolation method is used.
Fig. 2. Graphical representation of the derivation of the quench hardness distribution in the case. a)
determination of the applicable distance from the end face from the representative cylinder
diameter and the quenching intensity; b) calculated Jominy curves for the carbon concentra-
tions in the case; c) carburization profile; d) resulting quenching hardness distribution.
1-212
Tempering. In order to have a satisfying fatigue and abrasion resistance, a minimum hardness of
about 60 HRC after tempering is necessary [63]. That is why a typical tempering temperature and
time combination of 150 to 200 C and 2 to 4 hours, respectively, is applied [9]. Hence in SimCarb
QenchTemp the user is able to choose a tempering temperature between 150 and 200 C and a
tempering time between 2 and 4 hours. During tempering, the ductility is increased and the risk of
cracking is reduced. Furthermore, the microstructure of the quenched steel is stabilized and the
dominating hardness mechanisms changes. In the indicvated temperature range, the hardness of the
martensitic structure decreases whereas the other phases do not response accordingly. For the
calculation of the hardness of the martensite microstructure, the diminution factor d is used [64]:
( ) t T c d H H , ,
C Q T
=
o o
(9)
o
Q
H and
o
T
H respectively describe the quenched and tempered hardness of the martensitic
structure. The martensite content is estimated following a method of Hodge and Orehoski [85]. The
used data of the diminution factor d arise from own experiments. The matrix with low carbon
concentrations, c
C
, around 0.2 wt.% changes hardly during tempering so that in these regions the
quenching hardness is equal to the tempering hardness. For a given tempering temperature and time,
the diminution factor d decreases with increasing carbon concentration c
C
. Therefore, a higher
initial quenching hardness decreases more than a lower one. The other microstructures like bainite,
perlite, ferrite and retained austenite that can occur in the surface layer are thermally more stable
and do not reveal such tempering reaction in the relevant temperature range. For these constituents,
the quenching hardness may be assumed according to the following equation:
R
T
R
Q
H H = (10)
In Fig. 5, the tempering dialog box is shown. The user is able to choose a tempering temperature
(150, 170, 185 and 200 C) and a tempering time (2, 3 and 4 h) from two list boxes. Alternatively, it
is possible to enter a user defined equation by a polynomial of maximum fifth degree (continuous
index i) for the calculation of the diminution factor:
=
=
5
0
C C
) (
i
i
i
c A c d (11)
The carbon concentration c
C
is expressed in wt.%. The diminution factor d of martensite is
dimensionless. The unit of the coefficient A
i
, which is entered into the input boxes, is (wt.%)
-i
.
Thermophysical model
The essential part of the thermophysical model of SimCarb QuenchTemp is also the hardness simu-
lation in the case after quenching and tempering. Moreover, this model simulates the depth distribu-
tion of the quenching microstructure, which is not significantly changed by tempering in the rele-
vant range of maximum 200 C (retained austenite transformation negligible). As well as in the
empirical model, the carburization profile is imported or user defined to perform the calculation.
A temperature distribution during quenching is simulated by applying the finite difference
method. Fouriers law is modified to use temperature dependent heat transfer and conduction
coefficients. A simplified approach considers the changing microstructure during quenching in the
calculation of heat conduction coefficients from the chemical composition of the steel. Heat transfer
coefficients are taken from literature for common quenchants and can be selected by the user. Alter-
natively, the generation of user-defined quenchants by entering supporting points for temperature
and heat transfer coefficient is possible.
The quenching hardness and the microstructural composition is derived by identifying the simu-
lated cooling curves for each depth in continuous cooling transformation diagrams which are imple-
mented for conventional case hardening steels and carbon concentrations from 0.1 to 1.0 wt.%. The
tempering hardness is deduced by experimentally determined Hollomon-Jaffe parameters.
1-213
Fig. 5. Dialog box for entering an equation of the carbon dependent diminution factor for martensite or
selecting the tempering conditions (temperature, time) based on stored experimental data.
Modification of Fouriers Law. The temperature distribution during quenching is described by
Fouriers law for an ideal round specimen (infinitely long plain cylinder) of diameter of 2R. The
conventional equation of Fouriers law for one-dimensional radial heat flow in cylinder coordinates
is written as follows [65 67]:
|
|
.
|
\
|
c
c
c
c
=
c
c
r
T
a r
r r t
T 1
(12)
Eq. 12 is a parabolic partial (transport) differential equation of second degree. The temperature
conductibility a is, analogously to Ficks law, also known as thermal diffusion coefficient:
p
c
a = (13)
The coefficients T, t, , c
p
and respectively stand for temperature, time, heat conductivity, spe-
cific heat capacity and density. As the heat conduction coefficient is considered as dependent
upon the temperature, the temperature conductibility a also becomes temperature dependent:
( )
( )
p
c
T
T a = (14)
For the temperature dependent temperature conductibility a(T), the Fourier temperature conduc-
tion equation is modified:
( )
( )
(
c
c
c
c
+
c
c
+
c
c
=
c
c
r
T
T
a
r
T a
r
T
r
T
T a
t
T
2
2
(15)
1-214
The initial condition is given as follows:
0 , ,
H
= < = t R r T T (16)
The quenching temperature T
H
is assumed to be uniformly in the entire work piece. The heat
transfer from quenchant to work piece is described by a boundary condition of third degree:
( ) 0 , ,
F
> = =
c
c
t R r T T
r
T
(17)
The quenchant temperature is denoted T
F
. The heat transfer coefficient o(T) takes the relevant
stages of heat transfer into account. It depends in a complex way on the temperature and flow rate
of the quenchant as well as on the steel grade, geometry and surface condition of the work piece.
This coefficient is well suited for the description of the cooling effect of a quenchants.
Alternatively, a boundary condition of the first degree can be used:
( ) 0 , , > = = t R r t f T (18)
The surface temperature of the work piece is defined as a function of time during the quenching
process.
Heat Transfer Coefficient and Quenchant Temperature. The heat transfer coefficient has a
significant influence on the simulation of the temperature distribution and is highly dependent on
temperature and type of quenchant [48]. Once a work piece is introduced into a liquid, the occurring
cooling curve is much more complex than suggested by Newtons law of cooling [13]. Fig. 6 shows
heat transfer coefficients for resting water at 20 and 60 C as a function of surface temperature [68].
Generally, there are three different key stages of heat transfer during quenching. The first stage
of cooling is characterized by the formation of a vapor blanket around the work piece, which slows
down cooling significantly because it acts as an insulator [69]. Basically, cooling occurs by radia-
tion through the vapor film. The temperature, above which a total vapor blanket is maintained, is
known as the Leidenfrost temperature [55, 70].
The highest cooling rate occurs in the second so-called boiling stage. In this phase, the vapor
blanket disappears and the colder liquid is continuously brought into contact with the hot surface.
High heat extraction rates are the consequence [13, 71].
The third stage begins when the temperature of the steel reaches a point where liquid convection
is sufficient to keep it from boiling. Below this point, boiling stops and cooling takes place by
conduction and convection into the quenchant. The cooling rate thus decreases in the third phase of
quenching [70, 71].
Fig. 3.
Comparison of temperature de-
pendent heat transfer coeffi-
cients for Water, still at 20
and 60 C [68].
1-215
The three quenching stages cannot be taken into account in the calculation by a constant value of
the heat transfer coefficient. Therefore, simulation in SimCarb QuenchTemp is realized by means of
temperature dependent heat transfer coefficients (T). In Fig. 7, the dialog box for quenchant type
and temperature is displayed. The user can choose a quenchant from a list of totally 12 entries.
Fig. 4. Dialog box for selecting a quenchant, entering a constant heat transfer coefficient manually
or generating a user-defined quenchant, including input field for the quenchant temperature.
Temperature dependent heat transfer coefficients for several quenchants, which can be selected
by the user, are taken from the literature for common quenchants [13, 55, 68, 72 75]. It is also
possible to enter a constant value of the heat transfer coefficient instead of choosing a quenchant.
This value is inserted in Wm
2
K
1
.
Moreover, user-defined quenchants can be created by entering supporting points for temperature
T and heat transfer coefficient . The way of creating quenchants is comparable with the generation
of carburization profiles. A user-defined quenchant can be saved for further simulations into an
ASCII file.
Heat Conduction Coefficient. The heat conductivity depends on the temperature, microstruc-
ture composition and carbon concentration of each steel [48, 76, 77]. In SimCarb QuenchTemp, a
model for the estimation of the heat conduction coefficient (T) is developed. The approach is based
on empirical data of heat conduction of different microstructures and temperatures and is illustrated
in Fig. 8. It is assumed that during quenching there are three different microstructure constituents:
austenite, mixed microstructure region austenite/martensite and martensite. The transition between
the microstructure areas is characterized by the martensite start and finish temperature, M
s
and M
f
.
Above the martensite start temperature M
s
, in principle austenitic microstructure exists. Within
this region, the heat conduction coefficient decreases with decreasing temperature [78]. Between the
M
s
and M
f
temperature, a mixed microstructure region occurs, where the heat conduction coefficient
increases with decreasing temperature. Below the martensite finish temperature M
f
, the martensite
transformation is completed. Within the martensitic microstructure, the heat conduction coefficient
increases slightly with decreasing temperature [79, 80].
This approach for the calculation of the temperature dependent heat conduction coefficients (T)
is implemented in SimCarb QuenchTemp. Here, a simplified linear development as shown in Fig. 8
is assumed.
This calculation method is performed, amongst others, by means of M
s
, M
f
and Ac
1
temperature
of the selected steel. The determination of M
s
and M
f
temperature considers the alloy composition
and is based on the method of Andrews [81]. For the determination of the heat conductivity at 25 C
1-216
the so-called ADC (austenite decomposition) model is applied [80]. The heat conductivity at M
s
and
Ac
1
(723 C) is calculated by a linear equation for the austenitic region [78]. The heat conductivity
at M
f
is determined by using a linear relationship between the heat conduction coefficients at 25 and
723 C. These main supporting points are connected by linear correlations to compute heat
conduction coefficients at each temperature. The heat conduction coefficients are calculated for
every temperature step during quenching by applying this method.
Fig. 5. Temperature dependency of the heat conduction coefficient for 18CrNiMo7-6.
As an alternative, it is possible to use a constant value of the heat conduction coefficient for the
simulation of the temperature distribution. This value is entered into the corresponding dialog box
of Fig. 9 in Wm
1
K
1
.
Fig. 6. Dialog box for selecting temperature dependent heat conduction or entering a constant value
of the heat conduction coefficient.
Simulation of the Temperature Distribution. The modified Fourier law is solved by using an
explicit finite difference method (FDM) for radial heat flow. Temperature dependent heat transfer
coefficient and heat conduction coefficient can be applied for the simulation of the temperature field
during quenching.
Fig. 10 shows a chart of supporting points nr for the discretization of space in the finite
difference method. To avoid incorrect user input with possible stability problems, the ideal number
1-217
of supporting points nr is automatically calculated by the program, depending on the diameter of the
round specimen and the value of the time increment.
Fig. 10. Scheme of the spatial discretization.
The number of time increments, nt, can be determined automatically for optimized computing
performance or is alternatively entered manually as a cooling time. This cooling time is inserted in s
and subsequently converted into a number of time elements nt. The optimal extension of the time
increments t is preset and deduced from a large number of test runs.
If the automatic mode is selected, SimCarb QuenchTemp continuous with the simulation until a
temperature of 500 C is reached. This is the temperature needed for the calculation of average
cooling rates (see next section). The automatic mode of the program optimizes the computing time
of the simulation and is recommended to the user.
Identification of Quenching Hardness and Microstructure Composition. To identify the
quenching hardness and microstructure composition, the t
8/5
cooling time is calculated for each
depth of the simulated temperature distribution. This parameter is known from welding models and
stands for the time that is required to pass through the temperature range from 800 to 500 C [13,
82]. From this time t
8/5,
an average cooling rate v is calculated by the following equation:
s
C 500 800
5 / 8
=
t
v (19)
This determined cooling rate v is then compared with cooling curves of continuous time-tem-
perature-transformation (TTT) diagrams, which are calculated by means of the JMatPro
software
for more than 35 conventional case hardening steels. The considered carbon concentrations and
cooling rates range from 0.1 to 1.0 wt.% and 1 to 600 C, respectively. In this way, the quenching
hardness and microstructure composition is derived step by step for every depth.
The user can select case hardening steels from the corresponding dialog box in SimCarb
QuenchTemp. Moreover, there is the possibility to change the chemical composition of each alloy.
This modification influences the simulation of the temperature distribution but has no direct effect
on the subsequent identification of the quenching hardness and the microstructure composition.
Tempering. In the empirical model, the tempering hardness is calculated by a diminution factor
for martensite [64]. In the thermophysical model, the Hollomon-Jaffe parameter, H
P
, is used to
predict the hardness decrease as an established approach. The application of tempering parameters,
particularly of H
P
, is proposed in the literature. By this parameter, a satisfying agreement with data
for a large hardness range is achieved [83 85], particularly at higher temperatures [86].
( ) ( ) C log 15 . 273
P
+ + = t T H (12)
In this equation, T, t and C stand for temperature, time and a material dependent constant,
respectively. The material constant C is dimensionless and ranges for unalloyed and moderately
alloyed steels from 14 to 20 [85, 87, 88]. Different combinations of temperature and time can result
in the same Hollomon-Jaffe parameter, which means similar tempering effect as well.
The data, which are used in SimCarb QuenchTemp, are deduced from own experiments for
18CrNiMo7-6, 20MoCr4 and 16MnCr5. For these case hardening steels, tempering experiments at
1-218
temperatures and times from 150 to 200 C and 2 to 4 h, respectively, are carried out to investigate
the differences in tempering resistance. It is found that the hardness decrease of these steel grades in
the considered temperature range between 150 and 200 C is identical. At higher temperatures up to
300 and 400 C, the hardness decrease of the different materials varies: whereas 18CrNiMo7-6 is
rather resistant to tempering and does not lose much hardness, 20MoCr4 and 16MnCr5 reveal
significantly lower tempering resistance.
As the typical temperature range of tempering in case hardening is between 150 and 200 C,
tempering resistivity of different case hardening steels can be assumed to be equal in SimCarb
QuenchTemp. Therefore, it is not necessary to define different types of tempering resistance groups
with varying Hollomon-Jaffe parameters. One H
P
set for every temperature-time combination is
evaluated from the experimental data and used for all steels in SimCarb QuenchTemp. In the
thermophysical model, the user can choose a tempering temperature between 150 and 200 C in
steps of 1 C and a tempering time between 2 and 4 h in steps of 1 min for the calculation of the
tempering hardness from Hollomon-Jaffe parameters.
Simulation results
In SimCarb QuenchTemp, numerous simulation results are provided to the user. This includes,
besides a summary of the most important simulation results and process information, a graphical
output of the hardness depth distribution after quenching and tempering. Furthermore, the depth
dependent hardness and microstructure composition can be exported as an ASCII file (.txt format)
for further processing with, e. g., Microsoft Excel.
After each simulation, the most significant simulation results and process information like, e. g.,
steel composition, model cylinder diameter, heat transfer, heat conduction, quenchant type and
quenchant temperature, hardening temperature, surface carbon concentration, surface hardness and
case hardening depth are displayed in at a glance SimCarb QuenchTemp. This information can be
printed out and saved as an image file.
The hardness profile after quenching and tempering is displayed as a graphical hardness depth
distribution, as shown in Fig. 11. This diagram can be printed and saved.
Fig. 11. Graphical output representation of the simulated hardness profile.
With the export function of SimCarb QuenchTemp, it is, furthermore, possible to export the
hardness and microstructure composition as a function of depth into an ASCII file for further
1-219
processing with, e. g., Microsoft Excel. The export function for the microstructure composition is
limited to the thermophysical model and includes the microstructures martensite, bainite, ferrite,
perlite and (retained) austenite.
Simulation Examples and Verification by Case Hardening Experiments
In the following section, the practical application of the SimCarb QuenchTemp software is demon-
strated by means of typical simulation examples of the empirical and thermophysical model. In
addition to the quenching hardness distribution, the case hardening depth, CHD, as key process
target parameter is evaluated.
Empirical model
With the empirical model, a quenching process of the case hardening steel 15Cr3 with a cylinder di-
ameter of d
0
=50 mm is simulated. For this quenching process, strongly differing Grossman numbers
h=0.3 and h=1.5 are applied. The used carburization profile with a surface carbon concentration of
0.6 wt.% is simulated during a two-stage gas carburizing process by SimCarb. The austenite grain
size K
ASTM
is 8. The resulting quenching hardness distributions are shown in Fig. 12. Additionally,
the carburization profile and the quenching hardness distribution, which is calculated by SimCarb
with the hardenability relationship of Hodge-Orehoski (see Eq. 4), are plotted in the diagram.
Fig. 12.
Simulated quenching hard-
ness distributions (cylinder
diameter d
0
=50 mm) of
15Cr3 steel for clearly dif-
ferent Grossman numbers
h=0.3 and h=1.5.
In Fig. 13, the influence of the representative cylinder diameter d
0
on the resulting quenching
hardness distribution is demonstrated for the case hardening steel 15Cr3. The applied representative
cylinder diameters d
0
amount to 50, 100 and 300 mm. The Grossman number is h=1.0, which corre-
sponds to still water.
Fig. 13.
Simulated quenching hardness
distributions of the case hard-
ening steel 15Cr3 for the indi-
cated representative cylinder
diameters d
0
. The carburization
profile, which is also plotted in
1-220
Fig.12, is considered in the analysis. The quenching severity factor equals 1.0.
Thermophysical model
Applying the thermophysical model, a quenching process on a cylinder of 18NiCrMo14-6 steel of a
diameter of d=40 mm is simulated. The carburization profile with a surface carbon concentration of
0.82 wt.% after a two-stage boost-diffuse gas carburizing process, determined by secondary ion
mass spectrometry (SIMS) [35], is shown in Fig. 14. The carbon content in the near-surface area,
where the measuring accuracy is reduced, is adjusted by means of the alloy factor recommended by
the AWT [3]. For the quenching process, quenching oil, still with a fluid temperature T
F
of 53 C
is considered as quenchant. The heat transfer coefficient of this quenchant is shown in Fig. 15 as a
function of the surface temperature T.
Fig. 14.
Measured carbon content after
carburizing of 18NiCrMo14-6.
The carbon concentrations in
the surface zone are adjusted
according to the alloy factor
proposed by the AWT [3].
In Fig. 16, the resulting quenching hardness distribution of the simulation for the thermophysical
model is displayed. Also, the measured quenching hardness profile from identical quenching
experiments is plotted. Both hardness profiles are quite similar, the case hardening depths of 4.02
and 4.24 mm lie close to each other. In the surface area, a retained austenite content of almost 23
vol.% and a martensite fraction of about 77 vol.% are predicted.
1-221
Fig. 15. Heat transfer coefficient of quenching oil, still as a function of surface temperature T.
Fig. 16. Simulated and measured hardness profile of 18NiCrMo14-6 steel quenched in quenching
oil, still.
Fig. 17 provides a comparison of the simulated and measured retained austenite distribution of
18NiCrMo14-6 steel after the quenching treatment. The computation moderately falls below the
data points, which obviously does not affect the hardness prediction noticeably.
1-222
Fig. 17. Simulated and measured retained austenite distribution after quenching of 18NiCrMo14-6.
Discussion
In the empirical as well as in the thermophysical model of SimCarb QuenchTemp, several simplifi-
cations in the prediction of the hardness from a given carburization profile after quenching and
tempering are made. These assumptions are discussed briefly in the following.
Empirical model
The procedure of Wyss to simulate the hardness profile after quenching is established in practice.
Comparisons with measured hardness profiles of carburized steels are available in the literature
[39]. In this procedure the preset equation for the calculation of carbon dependent Jominy curves
stems from regression analyses [37, 38, 42]. This expression proposed by Just achieves good agree-
ment with measured hardness profiles for low alloyed case hardening steels (e. g. 17Cr3). However,
it should be noted that the equation is not applicable to higher alloyed grades (e. g. 18CrNiMo7-6).
The hardenability relationships for the determination of the surface hardness take only the carbon
concentration into account. The influence of the alloying elements is neglected as the maximum
martensite hardness is governed by the carbon content.
The quenching severity factor of Grossman semiquantitatively estimates the cooling rate of a
work piece (model cylinder) achieved by an applied quenchant (e. g. hardening oil) in relation to
still water at 18 C. This thermophysical parameter can be determined experimentally or taken from
the literature. The chilling effect depends on the quenchant type and its state of agitation and flow.
Furthermore, it depends on the heat conduction of the steel and some other influencing factors, e. g.
bath and hardening temperature, mass of the work piece and wall thickness [48, 55, 89, 90]. The
relevant characteristics for the chilling effect like chemical composition, viscosity and boiling point,
however, cannot be taken into account as a criterion in the empirical model.
The heat conductivity of a steel grade depends on the microstructure, carbon concentration and
temperature [48, 76, 77]. These influencing factors vary with time and position during quenching.
On the contrary, the Grossman number represents a constant effective value. Especially during
nucleate boiling, the heat conduction coefficient is very high and only described insufficiently by
the Grossman number. Actually, many quenchants in industrial heat treatment do not show a
Newtonian cooling [89]. Finally the concept of Grossman is not suitable for discontinuous (e. g.
interrupted) quenching processes [13]: changing quenchants or modified stages of agitation cannot
be treated by this severity factor.
The microstructure analysis, based on the approach of Hodge and Orehoski, provides a practical
but, particularly for small contents, a rough estimation of the martensite fraction. This martensite
1-223
content is required for the carbon, temperature and time dependent diminution factor, which is used
for the prediction of the tempering from the quenching hardness. A direct determination of the
microstructural composition is not possible in the empirical model. That is why the martensite con-
tent is required as a function of carbon concentration or depth.
Only the martensitic phase is sensitive to tempering response by hardness decrease in the tem-
perature range up to 200 C common in case hardening. With increasing distance from the surface,
the critical cooling rate for reaching the martensite start temperature transformation free depends on
the alloy composition of the steel and the carbon concentration. Here, the simplified microstructure
analysis loses precision and the estimation of the martensite content is too high leading to a reduced
tempering hardness. With decreasing carbon concentration and increasing distance from the surface,
the diminution factor tends toward 1, which limits this deviation in the practical application.
Thermophysical model
The simulation of the temperature distribution during quenching is based on a modified Fourier law
that is solved by an explicit finite difference method. It is well know from the literature that an
implicit finite difference method is faster and numerically more stable. To achieve good results with
an explicit method, the time steps t should be very small, which results in a large number of time
increments nt. This normally extends the computing time. However, the simulated quenching time
from hardening temperature to 500 C is less than one minute, which means that the number of time
increments nt is still manageable for an explicit method. Due to this reason and the fact that the
programmability in FORTRAN is more comfortable, the explicit method is a good choice for this
kind of simulation. The results of this numerical technique agree very well with an analytical solu-
tion applied to special conditions as reference [65]. The computing time is less than two seconds.
When it comes to the different stages of heat transfer during quenching (film boiling, nucleate
boiling, convection), the heat transfer coefficient is considered as a function of temperature in
SimCarb QuenchTemp. This means that, for every temperature step, the adequate heat transfer
coefficient is used, which makes the simulation more comparable to industrial heat treatment
processes. Heat transfer coefficients for the most quenchants in SimCarb QuenchTemp are taken
from the literature [13, 55, 68, 72 75]. As the heat transfer coefficients sensitively depend on the
state of agitation, temperature and type of quenchant, little deviations have a great influence on the
simulation and, as a consequence, on the quenching hardness and microstructure composition.
Therefore, the heat transfer coefficients of the used quenchant must be known precisely to achieve
reliable results.
As mentioned above, the heat conductivity of steel depends upon the microstructure, carbon
concentration and temperature [48, 76, 77]. In the empirical model, the heat conductivity is taken
into account only by a constant (effective) value for every stage of the quenching process. In the
thermophysical model, for each temperature step of the finite difference method, a temperature
dependent heat conduction coefficient is used. As shown in Fig. 8, a linear relationship of the heat
conductivity in the martensitic and austenitic structure as well as in the mixed area in between is
assumed. This simplified linear assumption is based on empirical research [78 81].
The cooling time t
8/5
is well known from welding and denotes the time that is needed to pass
through a temperature range from 800 to 500 C during cooling of a weld seam [13, 82]. The choice
of the temperature interval of 800 and 500 C is proven successfully in welding modeling. In
SimCarb QuenchTemp, this temperature range is used to calculate an average cooling rate for every
depth. Simulation parameter studies reveal that a change of the interval limits especially to lower
temperature results in a lower average cooling rate because the cooling rate decreases at lower
temperatures. However, the good agreement of the simulation results with measurements shows that
the temperature span of 800 to 500 C is well suited for the calculation of characteristic average
cooling rates in SimCarb QuenchTemp.
Continuous cooling transformation (CCT) diagrams for more than 35 steels, its carbon contents
between 0.1 and 1.0 wt.% and cooling rates from 1 to 600 C/s are stored in SimCarb QuenchTemp.
1-224
These CCT diagrams are calculated by means of the commercial JMatPro